Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (14.2002(2003))

NAQLUN

(here provisionally designated as N) to be
a mere late and faulty derivative of the
version embodied in the Hamouli
manuscript M. A sample taken from
chapter 1, however, belies this expectation.
Whereas, predictably, N most often shares
its readings with A, B and, of course, M,
this is certainly not always the case.
Sometimes, it even appears to side with the
early ms. P against A, B and M. Thus, in
1:31, N has the order Mei 2.nok with P
against the other three and the
circumstantial eiB2.TTTiZe with the older
manuscripts P, A and B against M.
In spite of its extremely late date,
therefore, the Naqlun John is certainly not
a slavish copy of one or another of the four

complete witnesses known to date.
Moreover, even though the manuscript has
its usual share of small copyist's errors,
omissions and ad sensuvi additions, it
appears to represent on the whole a careful-
ly transcribed and well preserved text. N is
therefore not only a welcome addition to
the small number of complete Sahidic
manuscripts of John, it also deserves to take
its place in the textual history of the
Sahidic NT as an independent witness on
a par with A, B or M. In order to make it
available to the scholarly world without
much delay, the rapid publication of an
editio minor, more or less along the lines of
H. Quecke's “Johannesevangelium”, is
envisioned.

176